Saturday, October 17, 2009

Is there a more obvious solution for the Tamil refugees?

The headline news is the attempt of boatloads of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees to land in Australia. The Tamils were outraged when they were detained instead in Indonesia. They have claimed, in highly emotional terms, that Australia is the only place they have to go to.

I am not aware of a single journalist asking the obvious question. Why would the Tamils travel thousands of kilometres to a foreign land and culture, when they could have travelled 30km instead to the original Tamil homeland: the state of Tamil Nadu in India?

(The first map shows Sri Lanka in dark green just off the coast of Tamil Nadu in India in red.)

Tamil people are an ethnic group native to Tamil Nadu, a state in India, and the north-eastern region of Sri Lanka.

Yes, there has been a civil war in Sri Lanka. It's conceivable that some Tamils in Sri Lanka have been displaced. The most logical place for them to be resettled, surely, is Tamil Nadu in India, where the Tamil culture and people have a history going back perhaps to the year 1500 BC:

Possible evidence indicating the earliest presence of Tamil people in modern day Tamil Nadu are the megalithic urn burials, dating from around 1500 BC and onwards, which have been discovered at various locations in Tamil Nadu ... which conform to the descriptions of funerals in classical Tamil literature.

It seems to me that there are two likely scenarios here. First, the Tamils could have gone to the Tamil state in India but thought Australia a better option economically. In which case they are not being upfront about their choice of destination.

Second, it's possible (though I doubt it) that the Indian government doesn't want them resettled in Tamil Nadu. If this is the case, then the Indian government should come under pressure to allow them to make the short journey to Tamil Nadu.

If any reader is aware of a reason why Tamil Nadu is not an option for the Tamil refugees I'd ask them to put it forward in the comments.

(The second map shows the area (in pink) that was once controlled by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. The map illustrates just how short a distance it is to Tamil Nadu in India.)

49 comments:

In the early stages of colonization, people from England could have easily gone to France, Germany etc, why did they travelled up to Australia? First we should be human beings before searching for reasons.

Anonymous, the Britons who came to Australia in colonial times did not claim to be refugees. They were here as settlers.

It's possible to be compassionate toward genuine refugees whilst still looking for a best solution. I cannot see how Australia is a best solution in this case.

A Tamil who comes here loses much that is important - his history, his culture, his identity. He could instead live comfortably and safely in Tamil Nadu and keep these important aspects of human life not only for himself but for his family as well.

It is not a definition of "human" to be primarily motivated by material concerns. I am open-minded and willing to be persuaded that there are other, non-material reasons for Tamils to travel so far away. Your short comment, however, doesn't give such a reason.

Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about. 255 people is just a drop a in the Ocean. Why this issue (illegal immigration) gets so much attention in the Australian media is beyond me.

While forests are being cleared to cater to the voluminous tomes being written about a few hundred ayslum seekers in Indonesia, thousands of permanent arrivals are marching in through the front door on a daily basis currently giving Australia a higher rate of population growth than all but the poorest developing countries. That is the real scandal in my opinion.

Just recently Ms Gillard was crowing about how wonderful it was that Melbourne was Australia's fastest growing city. The question that these politicians never seem to ask is who really benefits from mass immigration and what are the costs to the community? Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the last train line built in Melbourne in the 1930s?

As for the Sri Lankans, their push to come all the way to Australia instead of seeking refuge in neighboring Tamil Nadu is very difficult to explain/understand.

To India's credit they have a good track record with refugees. (Dharamshala in nothern India is known as "Little Lhasa" after so many Tibetans fled and were allowed to stay there. No-one can blame the Sri Lankans for wanting to make a better life for themselves and their kids but for the sake of their own safety and peace of mind someone needs to tell them that it's really much easier to come in the front door.

"But third, and most importantly, check the map and see where Sri Lanka lies. So far away is it, in fact, that Australia isn’t even on the map. Let’s presume (on little proof) that these educated and monied Tamils could not stay in Sri Lanka, and let’s ask where they could go instead. Well, just across a narrow strait from their island is the Tamil Nadu state of India, which is safe. On route to Australia, these Tamils stopped in Malaysia, which is safe. Now they are in Indonesia, which is safe. Precisely why must they now demand that Australia, of all these countries and more, is the only one that must take them? Why is it our duty to agree?"

Also I saw on the ABC a Sri-Lankan spokesman who claimed the refugees accents sound funny, possibly American. Doesn't make much sense but he reckons they've probably spent time in a Western country.

My guess is Rudd wants Indonesia to detain all future refugees and then they'll be flown into Australia after processing. No boats, no problem. And stupid Australia will fall for it (after all they don't get bothered by the 600,000 immigrants, or whatever, who fly here each year). Rudd is a sneaky bugger.

There is no such thing as a "refugee" coming to Australia from any country. Any fraudster claiming "refugee" status, before shipping off to our shores, must make it accross other nations where there is no civil war/persecution etc. If that "refugee" was a refugee at all, he or she loses that status immediately upon entry into Indonesia. Simple.

BTW: good work on including imagery in your blog posts. Very good addition.

--If any reader is aware of a reason why Tamil Nadu is not an option for the Tamil refugees I'd ask them to put it forward in the comments---

The answer is pretty simple. Australia offers much better quality of life than Tamilnadu.

---Second, it's possible (though I doubt it) that the Indian government doesn't want them resettled in Tamil Nadu---

This CANNOT be true. But this resettlement is a enormous logistical challenge for us. India is a country mired in hopeless red-tape and conscious attempt towards "resettling" tamil refugees will drag on for decades.

The answer is pretty simple. Australia offers much better quality of life than Tamilnadu.

-----------

This CANNOT be true. But this resettlement is a enormous logistical challenge for us. India is a country mired in hopeless red-tape and conscious attempt towards "resettling" tamil refugees will drag on for decades.a

That doesn't justify why Australia has an obligation to accept these people. Australia has a higher quality of life because of the choices it has made. India is an ancient civilisation and should be leading the world. But it's not, it's 'mired in hopeless red-tape' as you say. If Australia allows the settlement of people who do not understand the choices necessary to sustain how quality of life then we will loose that quality of life; just have a look at the UK and, to a lessor extent, the USA. India needs to show the world it can make the correct choices. When we share the same values then we can start considering whether we should have further exchanges of people and culture.

I'm sure you realize that Leftists and Liberals think Europeans need to be punished for the sins of their ancestors in settling all over the world. They also want to see racist whites (all of us except them) brought down a peg by having NAM children beat up on our children.

"In the early stages of colonization, people from England could have easily gone to France, Germany etc, why did they travelled up to Australia? First we should be human beings before searching for reasons."

For one thing, in 1800 the global population was only one billion.

Today the global population is over six times larger and many environmentalists say most western countries have already exceeded their environmental carrying capacity.

If Australia continues to significantly increase its population, not only will most Australians suffer but so will those in the third world who depend on Australia for imported food.

Whatever, the decision over these refugees, Australia needs to remember that if it allowed in every refugee who wanted to come it would quickly cease to be a first world country.

I posed the question the way I did because I wanted to test the strength of my argument. If there really was some reason for Tamils not to be resettled in Tamil Nadu I wanted to know what it was.

There are always going to be a certain number of refugees, so there has to be some kind of policy or principle for their resettlement. They can't just be abandoned.

The principle, in my opinion, should be that refugees are resettled in countries with a similar standard of living (to avoid an explosion in the number of economic refugees) and with the closest possible ethnic tradition (to allow for the least disruptive assimilation into the host country, for the benefit of everyone involved).

If the most compatible country were a genuinely poor one, then I wouldn't have an objection to the resettlement being subsidised by wealthier nations.

Australia has a higher quality of life because of the choices it has made.

No, Australia has a higher quality of life because it is a predominately European society. Europeans seem to have a natural propensity for creating successful societies - so successful that the rest of the world wants to move in.

There is massive Third World immigration into European and European-derived nations only because non-Europeans seek levels of prosperity and orderliness they cannot find at home. This is why the agonising battles over "exclusion" and "discrimination" are always fought out in Western countries and cast European-descended people as the villains. Nowhere are European people trying to push their way into nations created by others.

Anonymous said: "Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about. 255 people is just a drop a in the Ocean. Why this issue (illegal immigration) gets so much attention in the Australian media is beyond me."

It isn't just a drop in the ocean. Every economic migrant who is allowed to enter Australia as a so-called "refugee" takes away a place from a genuine refugee. When we allow people to abuse our provisions for humanitarian assistance, then we are allowing criminals and morally diminished people into the country in place of people who are in fear of their lives and truly have nowhere else to go. This is a grave injustice.

As Mark has said: "There are always going to be a certain number of refugees, so there has to be some kind of policy or principle for their resettlement. They can't just be abandoned."

Mark, in answer to your question, I am not aware of any reason why the Tamils in question should not be resettled in Tamil Nadu. (Kilroy is correct to point out that they are technically not refugees if they make landfall anywhere between their home and Australia, by the way.) Unfortunately, I fear a significant majority of those whom we accept as "refugees" could be resettled in more culturally appropriate locations and that, like the USA, Australia is sought after as a place to better one's prospects. I don't blame them for wanting a better life, but they are abusing the system, bypassing the proper process for economic migration, and cheating genuine refugees from the help we wish to give.

No, Australia has a higher quality of life because it is a predominately European society. Europeans seem to have a natural propensity for creating successful societies

Not all European societies are successful, and there is not and never has been anything "natural" about European success. After all, Europeans were not the most successful societies on Earth until the last several centuries. European success (and Australian success) results from exactly what Michael said: the choices they made. Right now a great many European societies are making bad choices (like massive immigration) that are undermining their success.

"thousands of permanent arrivals are marching in through the front door on a daily basis currently giving Australia a higher rate of population growth than all but the poorest developing countries. That is the real scandal in my opinion."

I was thinking today why it is so difficult to get traction with the immigration issue.

Lets say you go to Uni. There is a huge diversity of people there but in practise you'll meet very few. On a day to day basis you'll hang out with a small number of people. So if you're in a self contained group what goes on around you doesn't really affect you, you hang out with your guys. If you bring in lots of other groups into that mix, migrants for instance, sure they'll be more colour on the street but it won't really affect you. People live in their own worlds so to speak.

Another example, its not the done thing to talk to people when you're a pedestrian in the city. You just sort of go your way and pay attention to others as little as possible. If you were to, for instance, offer to let someone stand under your umbrella in the rain you'd be thought of as a weirdo *chuckles*.

In this environment its very hard to voice a concern on immigration. The perception is that you're not "really" affected and so it would be rude to have an opinion on others.

You cannot be a refugee if you have travelled through several safe countries, thats not my definition, its the UN's.

So these people are not refugees.

If you add the fact that Tamil Nadu is 30km away and that the Indian government has shown no reluctance in the past [terrorists aside] to let Tamils in then this issue becomes stark.

WHY have so few news outlets bothered to reseach these simple and easily found out facts? Im sure if I can do it they can, and only a raving marxist would argue that such facts have no bearing on the debate.

Omg I was just watching the ABC where they said housing prices were rising, "largely because of immigration rates which are the highest since the gold rush" (pause for thoughful concern). How about that.

Jesse_7 said: "Another example, its not the done thing to talk to people when you're a pedestrian in the city. You just sort of go your way and pay attention to others as little as possible. If you were to, for instance, offer to let someone stand under your umbrella in the rain you'd be thought of as a weirdo *chuckles*."

This is a good point, something which I have forgotten somehwat since leaving the big city. It's a pity, as only a few months ago I took my daughter to the beach, bumped into an Orthodox Jewish acquaintance, and then was joined by a Muslim woman (stranger) in full burqa and hijab who wanted to practice her English. I haven't altered my distaste for the hijab or changed my views on terrorism and the Middle East conflict, but more of such conversations would go far in helping all of us be more compassionate, nuanced, and better-informed... and thus less open to Leftie/liberal accusations when we oppose open-door immigration and refugee policies. And others might learn the sort of problems that are created (for the refugees and migrants as well as the rest of society) when those of a not-so-compatible culture are relocated in Australia.

Tamils have been returning to Inda as refugees for several years. There are already thousands of Tamil refugees in Tamil Nadu. The job market for them there is not so rosy. Although these particular people prefer a return home to Sri Lanka, this article lends credence to the economic argument for not wanting to return to Tamil Nadu.

India is willing to spend $100m to resettle Tamils in Sri Lanka which seems to indicate the Indian officials are hoping they will not settle in India. I find this understandable as India has an uneasy and often volatile experience with multiculturalism to begin with.

Omg I was just watching the ABC where they said housing prices were rising, "largely because of immigration rates which are the highest since the gold rush" (pause for thoughful concern). How about that.

The link between record high immigration and rising house prices in Australia (now by far the most unaffordable in the Western world) has been obvious to everybody but politicians and the MSM for some time.

Not all European societies are successful, and there is not and never has been anything "natural" about European success. After all, Europeans were not the most successful societies on Earth until the last several centuries. European success (and Australian success) results from exactly what Michael said: the choices they made. Right now a great many European societies are making bad choices (like massive immigration) that are undermining their success.

The argument that Australia is a rich, successful and stable country because it was founded by Europeans has some merit. Other cultures and civilisations had ample opportunity to colonise Australia, but none of them were interested in this arid continent until the British settled here and developed it into one of the world's most prosperous societies.

Of course, Europeans aren't the only ones capable of creating prosperous, successful societies. One only needs to look at Japan to see that East Asians are also capable of creating highly advanced societies.

In truth, the success of a society is largely determined by the intelligence of its people, as Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen found in their book IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

Incidentally, Sri Lanka's national average IQ is estimated by Lynn and Vanhanen to be a meagre 79.

While forests are being cleared to cater to the voluminous tomes being written about a few hundred ayslum seekers in Indonesia, thousands of permanent arrivals are marching in through the front door on a daily basis currently giving Australia a higher rate of population growth than all but the poorest developing countries. That is the real scandal in my opinion.

Bizarre, isn't it?

Last financial year alone the equivalent of the entire population of Iceland came here legally through the front door, and it didn't even make the news. Yet a few boatloads of illegals turn up and the nation goes into a frenzy.

Civil rights apologists try to bottle up public concern about illegal arrivals, militant Islamism, ethnic gangs, drugs and the murderous danger zones that our CBDs have become, but from time to time the outrage erupts on talkback radio and in the letters to the editor columns. A caller from Bathurst, NSW, recently said the threat of Pacific Islander gangs in western Sydney made him pack up and leave, and he is not alone. A woman who was flying her Australian flag during the Cronulla riots had her house pelted with eggs. Police told her to take down the flag as it was inciting the Muslims.

These are today's forgotten people, Australians of all generations who know their history and are embittered as they see their heritage, values, institutions and way of life devalued. Under Labor, the rapid-fire arrival of boatloads of illegals has, until recently, failed to generate the banner headlines of the past, no doubt heart-warming for those Greens, Laborites and Liberal marshmallows who favour the madness of some sort of open borders policy. Ex-Liberal MP Bruce Baird, now holding a Labor job, told the Ten Network's Meet the Press Labor's policy changes on dealing with people-smugglers had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent surge in arrivals.

As Christmas Island readies to put up the no-vacancy sign, the hitherto silent Libs have broken out, led by Philip Ruddock and Kevin Andrews, and already the polls have spiked substantially in their favour, no doubt creating more grief for Malcolm Turnbull, who is handcuffed to the usual suspects in Wentworth and whose only comment to date has been a limp-wristed call for an independent inquiry.

The chief objective of the illegals and their criminal co-conspirators, the people-smugglers, is to be allowed to come ashore on the mainland and that will surely happen soon.

Still disconnected from the mainstream, there is hardly a mumble from the Liberals as our immigration rates accelerate.

A new Australia is in the making, where our ethnic minorities will become majorities, aided by people running Malcolm Fraser's line that we need a population of 50million plus, no doubt to be fed by the spring of taxpayer-funded multiculturalism.

Pasquarelli is correct in that there is a gaping hole in Australian politics for a party that doesn't represent the bleeding heart, inner-city, latte-sipping, tree-hugging vegans on the left or the Gerry "open borders are great for profits so let- her-rip" Harveys of this world.

Good Australian article (lets see if they publish my comment hehe). I can't tell you how good it is to have these issues out in the mainstream. The only problem is I really don't like Barnaby Joyce. I think he's a bloody idiot who generally just does the opposite of everyone else to get attention and lacks real guts or conviction.

Is a resurgent One Nation the party to vote for? The idea does make me cringe a little but I want my issues pushed.

"Yet a few boatloads of illegals turn up and the nation goes into a frenzy.

Please explain!"

The reaction is over the top for the numbers. I think its explained by illegal immigration being a topic we're allowed to discuss. The background issues (overall numbers, assumptions, problems and silence) is what generates the heat.

Pasquarelli is correct in that there is a gaping hole in Australian politics for a party that doesn't represent the bleeding heart, inner-city, latte-sipping, tree-hugging vegans on the left or the Gerry "open borders are great for profits so let- her-rip" Harveys of this world.

Katherine Betts' book The Great Divide is by far the most detailed examination of the huge gap between Australia's 'new class' pro-immigration elites and ordinary, native-born (white) Australians. As Betts shows, Australia's elites are not merely indifferent to the interests and wishes of ordinary Australians - they are actively working against them.

Yes it was said that the success of a society is largely determined by the intelligence of its people, however, with us the "smart" set is the loudest advocates of increased immigration. So what's up with that?

The notion of Australia as a "nation" has been fatally wounded by our elites. We aren't a nation any longer - just a mere 'economy'.

Rudd, in ramping up the program "to its highest levels since the gold rush" - in the midst of the global financial crisis and rising unemployment - has delivered the most brazen two-fingered salute to the "Australian working families" who put him in office in living memory.

What's totally baffling is that he is enjoying a 70% approval rating.

Our kids - whose wages and job opportunities are being crushed by the immigrant tsunami - are too brain washed by their teachers at this point by multicultural fairy tales and climate change scaremongering to grasp the magnitude of their betrayal.

It is they who will suffer the most from the poor decisions that are being made now. Already first home buyers have to pay the highest prices in the western world to get onto the bottom rung of the property ladder and many now commute 50km or more to their jobs from glorified shanty towns outside our cities.

Our state Labor politicians have the chutzpah tell us we all have to take 3 minute showers so they can squeeze another million people into our suburbs in the next 20 years to shore up their ethnic votes and fatten the wallets of their mates the property developers.

Fast forward 10 or 15 years and I think the electorate is going to take a very different view of some of the decisions that are being made now by our elites. Of course it goes without saying that, by then it will all be too late.

Mark, great post. I don't buy into the arguments put by unelected and supranational bodies that countries like Australia have any obligation whatsoever to accept refugees. Let them sort out their own problems.In relation to immigrants from Muslim countries, recent research by Nicolai Sennels has turned up some interesting considerations for Australia.

Among his recommendations:Stop immigration from Muslim countries altogether until it is proven that they can be integrated and help Muslims into new lives in another Muslim country of their choice by using the money we would otherwise spend on supporting them here, where they are unhappy and don't fit in, and can't fit in.

"Stop immigration from Muslim countries altogether until it is proven that they can be integrated"

I'm not sure they can be integrated. I was walking through the uni the other day and I saw the centre for Arab and Muslim studies. The sign on the building was in arabic above the english. Am I overreacting or would anyone else have the nerve to have a foreign language as a first language on signposts in anothers country? (Apart from the French).

These suckers when polled think in majority numbers that muslim terrorists had nothing to do with 9/11 and 7/7. That it was some conspiracy against them because they're hard done by muslims. What can you say to that?

I come from an officially bilingual country, and so I am used to seeing everything in two languages, and there are some sections of Toronto whose signage is in neither of the official languages. I think there is ample empirical evidence to suggest that many Muslims simply don't integrate. I took a cab last year, and got out and went to shake his hand and he backed away saying that he doesn't shake hands with women. There are lots of anecdotes. I am trying to get my hands on an English translation of Sennels book : "Among Criminal Muslims - A Psychologist's Experience from Copenhagen", so that I can read and understand more about why Muslims have difficulty integrating into Western cultures. Senior Liberal politicians have said that many of them are entirely antagonistic to our way of life.

"so that I can read and understand more about why Muslims have difficulty integrating into Western cultures. Senior Liberal politicians have said that many of them are entirely antagonistic to our way of life."

They've got their own culture I don't think they're interested in ours.

"Just being a Tamil does not make you a refugee. Moreover, if you are fleeing persecution as a Tamil in Sri Lanka, why wouldn't you go and live in Tamil Nadu, the giant Tamil state of India, just next door to Sri Lanka? India does not persecute people for being Tamils.

The reason you would prefer Australia is because life is much better in Australia. But this is not then a question of fleeing persecution. "

Did anyone watch the 7:30 report tonight? Kerry O'Brien was having a go at Rudd over the latest Ken Henry report saying that our pop will grow by 60% over 40 years. Sydney and Melbourne were predicted to grow to 7 mill etc. This was higher than government predictions. Kerry O'Brien seemed quite horrified and argued against it on environmental grounds. The “environment” will become code I think for unliveable cities. Rudd argued for it, "Good news Australia is growing". I think even the left is getting sick of the multicultural fun.

I was interested to read the post above by RD referring to the book 'The Great Divide' by Katharine Betts.

While not holding the book, I did find an interesting paper by Keith Windschuttle that gives a pretty good flavour of Prof Betts theory on the rise and actions of the "New Class", especially as regards immigration and multiculturalism.

By sheer coincidence, the following story has now emerged in the UK

Labour 'deliberately let migrants in to make Britain more multicultural and so Tories could be accused of racism'

Perhaps then the big problem is not the fact that so many on the outside want to get here by any means - perhaps it is the efforts of those in power within to advance their own social agendas by the means of mass migration ?